A drug-testing industry association and a pharmaceutical company are asking a federal court to block the Trump administration from moving forward with federal cannabis reregulation while hearing lawsuits challenging the reform, “arguing that marijuana abuse has lifelong dangerous consequences, especially for teenagers and pregnant women.”
The new filing says that by “reducing taxes on cannabis companies,” the federal reorganization will “stimulate the industry and increase marijuana abuse.”
The brief, filed Thursday, is the Justice Department’s response to the drug-testing group’s and pharmaceutical company’s motion to halt the rescheduling.
The government, in a brief issued earlier this month, noted that the entities challenging the rescheduling of cannabis “out-of-pocket interest all marijuana stored on schedule I” and they are not suitable opponents of reform because they are not the “intended beneficiaries” of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Opponents filed this week, however, say the DOJ’s arguments are “meritless diversions.”
“Movers should not be ‘intended beneficiaries of the CSA,'” he says. “It doesn’t matter that the movements have ‘pocket interests’ at stake, while the CSA has broader goals aimed at the general welfare.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia District is considering three separate cases that have since been consolidated from Schedule I to Schedule III of the CSA.
A lawsuit is led by a prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and National Drug and Alcohol Screening (NDASA)and they say they are “offended” by the reform. Another comes from a coalition anti-marijuana activists, substance abuse professionals, doctors and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. He filed a third claim Attorneys General of Indiana, Nebraska and Louisiana— although the latter appeared later withdrew from the suit.
Two of the organizations involved in the case—NDASA and MMJ International Holdings and its subsidiaries—filed a separate motion. asking the court to suspend the rescheduling of marijuana while considering the broader challenge.
In the latest filing, their lawyers say they would “suffer irreparable harm” from federal cannabis reform.
New costs related to medical review officer (MRO) practices to be imposed on NDASA members in the drug testing industry “will force some out of business,” he says.
“Because the authority makes marijuana legal for state ‘medical’ use, MROs will have to conduct time-consuming checks to determine whether positive THC tests are attributed to legitimate uses. This causes irretrievable losses—irreparable harm—in two ways. First, NDASA’s MRO members will absorb some of the new costs themselves because they cannot bear the losses. billing decision(s).’ Second, those who don’t absorb themselves will be passed on by higher prices, which will cause some customers to stop trying marijuana. It is not “speculative” that some customers will forgo more expensive tests; it is inevitable that “common sense economic reality(y)” – often relied upon by courts – is that demand falls as prices rise.’
The brief also states that the revision “forces many NDASA members who require employee drug testing to either (1) forego marijuana testing and live with the increased risk of employee accidents and reduced productivity, or (2) pay significantly more for marijuana testing and testing due to affirmative action liability under the Disabilities Act (ADA) or state law.”
Responding to the government’s argument that NDASA is not the right entity to deal with reprogramming because it is not a beneficiary of the CSA, the report says the group’s members “turn CSA prohibitions into concrete practices that protect the public.”
“Drug testing creates an essential deterrent to the CSA’s “primary purpose of combating drug abuse.” Thus, NDASA members’ interests in marketing drug testing devices and services—and their clients’ interests in safe, drug-free workplaces—are “unquestionably consistent with the purposes of the statute.”
Additionally, “NDASA members who test their employees have a vested interest in ensuring the safety of their employees and the public who may be affected by their work,” he says. “That interest is consistent with the goals of the CSA. Marijuana reorganization harms that interest by requiring costly revisions to drug testing policies; by making marijuana testing itself more expensive; and by placing NDASA members who act on positive marijuana test results at greater risk of ADA and state law liability.”
MMJ, for its part, will also harm its “competitive position in the market for federally illegal cannabis-based pharmaceuticals,” the filing claims.
“Prior to the Reconsideration Order, MMJ enjoyed a significant advantage due to federal compliance and significant progress toward an FDA-approved cannabis product. The order destroys that competitive advantage—reflecting eight years of hard work and a $10 million investment—by making competitors’ products that have defied capital federal law federal.”
“These damages cannot be ruled out on the theory that MMJ” has allowed no cannabis drug to come to market so far, the government said in its brief, the company’s lawyers wrote. “MMJ has jumped eight years to seek DEA registration and FDA approval, while its competitors have taken “few steps”—indeed, no steps—to seek federal drug approval.
“MMJ has spent nearly eight years and $10 million developing cannabis therapeutics to comply with federal law,” the filing states. “The Reconsideration Order suddenly creates illegal competition among the state’s illegal cannabis drug producers, who have so far made no effort to comply with federal drug laws.”
NDASA and MMJ also argue that the general lawsuit challenging the reorganization will ultimately succeed on the merits, saying the proposed rule is “unlawful” because the government did not undergo formal rulemaking procedures in “flagrant violation” of federal statute.
“The public interest clearly supports the stay,” he concludes.
The latest filing of the legal dispute comes as a The testimony concluded a hearing on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) marijuana reorganization proposal and the judge overseeing the proceedings outlined the next steps for filings that will lead to his own recommendation on whether the reform should be approved.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April He issued an order that immediately reclassified the state’s licensed medical cannabisas well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under Schedule I through Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). According to a separate order signed by the acting attorney general, the hearing is looking into Class III marijuana.
Meanwhile, Two medical marijuana companies filed a motion to intervene in the reconsideration case siding with the government and opposing the prohibition lawsuits. NDASA and SAM lawyers, however, filed a brief arguing that cannabis businesses should not be included in the lawsuit.
The challenge to SAM and NDASA’s reconsideration request was signed by attorneys at Torridon Law PLCC, where former US Attorney General William Barr, who led the DOJ during Trump’s first term, is a partner.
SAM announced in January that it was Hiring Barr’s firm to fight cannabis rescheduling After Trump signed an executive order directing officials to quickly complete the process.
Meanwhile, the Appropriations Committee of the Chamber Federal officials voted to block further steps to reschedule cannabis. Bipartisan lawmakers told Marihuana Moment, however, that they don’t expect legislative efforts to block rescheduling to be successful.
Separately, SAM, MMJ and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration’s program. Certain hemp-derived products are covered by Medicare. That the case was dismissed by a federal judge in May, though that decision is being appealed.
Read the full set of opponents to marijuana reprogramming short in the case below: